A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH: EPILOGUE

In the COUP Trilogy (A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3); (2 of 3); and (3 of 3) I charged that DNC operatives hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention so as to ensure Obama’s foregone nomination would be based only on votes cast by delegates pledged to either candidate, and not on votes cast by unpledged PLEO’s, or Party Leaders and Elected Officials, the so-called super delegates. Further, I alleged the DNC instituted this maneuver so as to allow these PLEO’s to avoid scrutiny they had sold their votes to the higher bidder. One week later, I want to clarify these 2 (two) points; and to add another.

First, do not let the technicalities and background narratives of these pieces obscure this damning fact: members of the Democratic Party conspired to violate the election laws passed in 13 (thirteen) states.

Second, although my conclusions as to the role the PLEO’s played in this coup was new, the information that they were bought, was not. Nor was any of the other information I posted regarding the advance planning implemented by senior D’s to ensure Obama would be the Presidential nominee, including configuring a skewed votes-per-delegate formula. Or the ongoing machinations to ensure his nomination, such as re-allocating pledged delegates from one candidate to another, by the RBC; and compelling ongoing negotiations regarding not only how and when, but also whether to hold what should have been an automatic open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, consistent with past practice. What was new was the way in which I wove all of these together into cause and effect. And just because the facts fit my final conclusion, this does not mean, I am right although, naturally, I believe I am.

Most importantly, the reason I wrote the COUP Trilogy telling you how election laws were broken – and these vote binding laws are all codified in the section of state laws marked “Election” – was so that you could do something about it.

I admit and have admitted several times, I was ignorant as to how our political system worked in real life, before the 2008 election cycle. But in the past two years, I have worked tirelessly to de-construct the election process and then, to explain what I learned to my fellow citizens, in terms lay people can understand. That’s one of the reasons I provided so much background information in this series, especially when the charges I was making could have been accomplished in much fewer lines. For example, I detailed how I stumbled onto vote binding states and frantically worked to get the word out. Why? Because this information did not make the ‘news.’ In other words, you would not know what I did unless I told you. This is precisely why I told you. I hoped that chronicling the serendipitous nature of my ‘discoveries,’ I would help you to realize, by overseeing the electoral process, asking questions whenever you think something isn’t quite right until you are satisfied you understand what went wrong, you, too, can come to know as much about our political system as those who ‘did wrong.’

In other instances, I pointed you to exactly what went wrong, even if the conduct was not illegal. For example, I included numerous links which led to more information spelling out that PLEO’s voiced public support for the D candidate who donated more money to his or her PAC’s (Political Action Committees).

But figuring out what went wrong or being told what went wrong points to the inherent shortcoming of all of my work. That is, just knowing what went wrong is not enough; now, you have to fix it.

For some people, this means educating others, or correcting mistakes where possible, especially when it comes to members of the press, who, at least when reporting on the voting obligation of pledged delegates at the convention, keep getting it wrong. Some people will have to do more.

For example, our state officials must be compelled to enforce existing laws. Even with admittedly flawed election laws, zealous law enforcement alone could have prevented the fraud that pervaded the 2008 elections. This means doing more than just writing or calling when both prove ineffective to get the official’s attention. People will be required to visit state offices to advance their concerns, accompanied by friends, family, and colleagues, arm-in-arm with the press. In states with holes in existing laws, for example, those states with no vote binding laws, we need to enact these laws. Votes in our state should mean something, whether cast in a general election or in a Presidential preference primary. Otherwise, we should refuse to conduct the primary for the political party. After all, we enacted the laws whose language allowed these private clubs to insinuate themselves into our governmental process in the first place. Only we have the power to write them out.

We also have to ‘call out’ those officials who did us wrong.

I wonder; DID ANYONE CONTACT THE OFFICIALS WHOSE CONVENTION VOTES WERE FOR SALE TO SAY, SHAME ON YOU! If their conduct in this regard now persuades you to vote for someone else, how will they know? If you don’t support the votes cast by your elected officials; or if they won’t enforce vote binding laws in your state (or even investigate charges against a party official who placed the name of a candidate on the ballot notwithstanding he was ineligible for the job) then, announce to these officials you intend not to re-elect them into office. And don’t. But also make sure the candidates now getting your votes know that you expect these unresolved issues to be addressed, as the price of being elected into office.

In the week since the COUP series ran, I received comments that point to another weak link in the omnibus citizen advocacy required to fix our political system: partisanship.

Citizen activism has to be non-partisan. After all, vote binding laws apply to everyone in the state, and they were passed by legislators elected by all of the voters. These are LAWS, not R laws, or D laws, or laws only for Unenrolled’s. (I wonder whether any of you, being R’s, ignored the paid off super delegates because the elected officials who bought off the D’s were D’s themselves? Being D’s, did you ignore the bribery of your public officials for this same reason?) Elected officials swear allegiance to the state and federal Constitutions, and not to the major political parties. Regardless of party affiliation, they need to take these oaths seriously. And regardless of party we, the sovereign citizens, have to make them.

I am not saying bipartisanship alone guarantees a job well done. In TX, the law says, only candidates eligible for office can get their names printed on the state ballot. Boyd Richie, Chair of the Texas Democratic Party (“TDP”) swore to state election officials Obama was eligible to be President but refuses to disclose the documentary basis for his Certification. Based in part on these facts, hundreds of citizens of TX – R’s and D’s and I’s – filed well-documented complaints with AG Greg Abbot (R-TX) charging Mr. Richie had committed election fraud. So far, Mr. Abbott refuses to act on these citizen complaints.

On the other hand, you saw that AG Baker (D-GA), on receiving well-documented complaints from citizens of GA – again, D’s and R’s and I’s – that Obama (D-IL) was violating vote binding laws, did something. IMMEDIATELY. (I wrote the letters but these had to be sent by real citizens of GA, with real addresses in the state. After all, AG Baker works for them.)

We have to begin thinking about the electoral process as non-partisan. Not just because as we have seen in the case of the rampant election fraud perpetrated by members of the D Party; the results have impacted us all. But because if one party sees we are impotent to moderate the conduct of the other, then, it correctly extrapolates our impotence across the political spectrum.

Certainly, we citizens are much stronger acting together to address the flaws in our political system than we are acting as agents for interested political parties.

Finally, I want to emphasize the underlying themes of all of the work I produce with respect to how our political system plays out in real life. Citizenship in our Constitutional Republic is not a spectator sport; and no weapon staves off tyranny more effectively than an educated electorate. Bottom line, I spelled out for you in the COUP series the unlawful fraud that occurred at the 2008 DNC Convention, effecting the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election, entrusting you to ‘run’ with this information. Otherwise, I predict, in the 2012 campaign cycle, your most cynical aspirations will come true. That is, nothing will change. (Except, of course, next time, you will understand perfectly everything that goes wrong.)

EPILOGUE to A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH

In the COUP Trilogy (A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3); (2 of 3); and (3 of 3) I charged that DNC operatives hid hundreds of votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states at the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Nominating Convention so as to ensure Obama’s foregone nomination would be based only on votes cast by delegates pledged to either candidate, and not on votes cast by unpledged PLEO’s, or Party Leaders and Elected Officials, the so-called super delegates.  Further, I alleged the DNC instituted this maneuver so as to allow these PLEO’s to avoid scrutiny they had sold their votes to the higher bidder.  In retrospect, I want to clarify these 2 (two) points; and to end with another.

First, I hope that the technicalities and background narratives of these pieces did not obscure the main point:  members of the Democratic Party conspired to violate election laws passed in 13 (thirteen) states.

Second, my conclusions as to the role the PLEO’s played in this coup was new but the information they were bought, was not.  Nor was any of the other information I posted regarding the planning implemented to ensure Obama would be the Presidential nominee, including configuring a skewed votes-per-delegate formulas; or re-allocating pledged delegates from one candidate to another, by the RBC; or conducting ongoing negotiations regarding not only how and when, but also whether to hold what should have been an automatic open roll call vote of all states on the floor of the convention, consistent with past practice.  What was new was my putting this all together.  And just because the facts fit my final conclusion, this does not mean, I am right.  Naturally, I believe I am.

So, why did I provide so much background information when the charges I was making could have been accomplished in much fewer lines?  For example, I included a lot of background information, like how I stumbled onto vote binding states and frantically worked to get the word out, which information did not make the ‘news.’ That is, you would not know what I did unless I told you. So, I told you.  Because I hope you realize you, too, can figure out something is wrong; and then do something about it.  Whenever you think something isn’t quite right, follow up.  Research.  Ask questions on the blogs.  Until you are satisfied.  And then, educate others, or correct mistakes where necessary, especially when it comes to members of the press, who, at least in reporting on the votes of pledged delegates from vote binding states, keep getting it wrong.

More importantly, now that you know election laws were broken, this calls for redress.

I admit and have admitted several times, I was ignorant as to how our political system worked in real life, before the 2008 election cycle.  But in the past two years, I have worked tirelessly to de-construct the election process so that lay people could understand how it works, and where it doesn’t, take action to shore it up. And that citizen activism must be non-partisan.  After all, vote binding laws apply to everyone in the state, and they were passed by legislators elected by all voters in the state.  These are LAWS, not R laws, or D laws, or laws only for Unenrolled’s.  Public officials swear allegiance to the state and federal Constitutions, and not to the major political parties.

In TX, the law says, only candidates eligible for office can get their names printed on the state ballot.  Boyd Richie, Chair of the TDP swore to state election officials Obama was eligible to be President but refuses to disclose the documentary basis for his Certification.  Based on these facts, hundreds of citizens of TX filed well-documented complaints with AG Greg Abbot (D-TX) charging Mr. Richie had committed election fraud.  Mr. Abbott won’t touch these citizen complaints. But you saw that AG Baker, D-GA, on receiving well-documented complaints from citizens of GA that Obama was violating vote binding laws, did something.  IMMEDIATELY.  (I wrote the letters but they had to be sent by real citizens of GA, with real addresses in the state. After all, AG Baker works for them.) We have to begin thinking about the electoral process as non-partisan.  Because the results affect us all. And we have to compel our state officials to enforce the law, regardless of party.  That’s our job.

I also included numerous links in this series which would lead to more links, which would spell out that PLEO’s voiced public support for the D candidate who donated more money to his or her campaigns.  Did people follow these links and investigate their elected officials?  Did they share this information with families, friends, and colleagues?  DID THEY CONTACT THE OFFICIAL TO SAY, SHAME ON YOU!  Will they now vote for someone else?  Don’t like the way an elected official votes; or that, s/he will not pursue charges against the D’s who placed the name of a candidate on the ballot notwithstanding he was ineligible for the job; or won’t enforce vote binding laws in your state, announce you intend not to re-elect that person into office.  And then, don’t.

And if states have no such vote binding laws, we need to enact them.  Votes in our state should mean something, whether they are cast in a general election or in a primary for a political party.  Otherwise, we should refuse to conduct the primary for the political party.  After all, we enacted the laws whose language allowed these private clubs to insinuate themselves into our governmental process in the first place.  And we can write them out.


Good citizenship in our Constitutional Republic is not a spectator sport.  And an educated electorate is tyranny’s worst enemy.

About these ads

12 Responses to A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH: EPILOGUE

  1. Michelle says:

    jbjd-yes, WE THE PEOPLE-citizens united, stronger together-yes we will proactively join together and defeat election fraud forever.
    Another great article sent to: League of Women voters (national), Breitbart.tv, Oil for Immigration, Andrea Shea King-Radio Patriot, tried repubx Defend our Freedoms but their site is having problems at the moment. I will continue to send this article out wherever, whenever I can. Did I ever tell you that you are amazing?

    Michelle: Thank you. I grow weary of people using defeatist phrases to describe the political situation in our country. Or saying things like, ‘We did everything possible to try to prevent this “Usurper” from occupying the WH.’ What did you actually DO! You didn’t even know no one is required by law to vet the man for Constitutional eligibility! Maybe after the fact, you bombarded state Electors with rambling diatribes charging he was ineligible. But did you enact a law requiring Electors to vote only for the candidate who is Constitutionally eligible for the job? NO! Yet, you enacted laws telling Electors they had to vote for the nominee of the party! GEESH! ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Michelle says:

    jbjd-in the end it could not be simpler, but the priorities are all wrong. The first sentence is so much more important to stop any would be usurper in their tracks and yet…
    “But did you enact a law requiring Electors to vote only for the candidate who is Constitutionally eligible for the job? NO!
    “Yet, you enacted laws telling Electors they had to vote for the nominee of the party!”
    GEESH I agree-Too much work by you and so many other loyal Americans have gone into this work, we will not be defeated by corrupt criminals, we will continue to point them out along with their nefarious criminal activities so help us God.

    Michelle: People appear to have lost the art of distinguishing between speech and conduct. I caution young people all the time not to gauge love by listening to what someone says but by listening to what s/he does. Before the 2008 election cycle, most people didn’t even know Electors could vote for an ineligible candidate, including me! And I know by the numbers on this blog, and the comments I read on other blogs; not all that many people have learned this since! There are so many sources for civic education, especially on the internet. We have had 2 (two) years and more to make up for our knowledge deficit. I have spelled out on this blog alone, what went wrong and how to fix it. But I swear, if 100,000 people or even 10,000 converged on Austin instead of D.C.; and asked AG Abbott why he refuses to investigate Boyd Richie for election fraud, holding up the suspect Certification that looks eerily like the one signed by NP; and points out, Mr. Richie refuses to disclose the basis for his Certification; then, in no time at all, we would resolve the fraud at the heart of the 2008 election. That is, we would establish Obama is not a NBC. The rest would be just housekeeping. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Michelle says:

    jbjd-you are so right, actions speak louder than words-re: love version. Abused wives come to mind-for all those who try/tried to help the abused wives it is an uphill battle. Tragedies that don’t need to happen.
    “in no time at all, we would resolve the fraud at the heart of the 2008 election. That is, we would establish Obama is not a NBC. The rest would be just housekeeping.”
    I’m no Martha Stewart but I would love giving every government entity involved in the fraud a good scrub.
    Cleanliness in next to godliness, but it should not be next to impossible and everything on the planet feels so much better after they have been cleansed.

    Michelle: You make me laugh. What I meant by ‘housekeeping’ is, introducing the Articles of Impeachment (if necessary; I predict Obama would resign at the point where his ineligibility to get on the TX ballot was established); and having JB become POTUS, appointing HRC as his VP. Plus, cue the lawyers… (I would bet I get an offer of a book deal when this happens!) ADMINISTRATOR

  4. afrocity says:

    I was not on the frontlines of the 2008 DNC primaries but I heard that things got pretty damn ugly and pretty damn unethical. I also believe that Obama did not win in Virgina. I think the break down came with the super delegates and let’s face it, the DNC was not used to dealing with such a highly contested primary season. It was a recipe for error and disaster.

    afrocity: Hey, there! Yes; the super delegates were the predicate variable that motivated the DNC to hide the votes of Clinton pledged delegates from vote binding states. They were paid to voice their support for Obama and got away with never having to go on the record, literally! Of course, as we have seen, this would not matter, anyway, since no actual record of the vote was tallied or kept. That is, their role was to shift the outcome without having to reveal, their opinions were bought and paid for. (Have you read the whole COUP Trilogy, 1, 2, and 3? This would make much better sense if you did. And this COUP Trilogy only touches on the fraud that occurred at the Convention…)
    ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Michelle says:

    jbjd-Articles of Impeachment/housecleaning-it cleans up crime, a big crime, a series of crimes?
    Anyway, I hope that your scenario comes true, cannot the DNC see that their credibility is at about 1 per cent and I say that as a former Dem due to all of this criminal behavior. I still can’t get over how the Dems screamed re: Nixon’s Constitutional issues and then go and do worse-hypocritical in addition to criminal.
    Everyone would be so happy if you received an offer of a book deal, you earned it-you have been working so hard and long and nobody knows the issues as well as you do, since you have lived every minute of it.
    I hope your son is enjoying the new school year-making new friends, learning much, and in general just being a kid.

    Michelle: Know what? A book could be just a collection of my ‘greatest hits’! Starting with, “Out of the Mouths of Babes”! Hmmm…

    My son has a class called “Law and Society.” I asked whether he wanted me to come in as a guest speaker to discuss the 2008 election. “NO!” Typical teenager. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Michelle says:

    Hi jbjd-I think Greatest Hits is a good idea, everybody can identify with that phrase and as you know “Out of the Mouths of Babes” is my personal favorite-it would be a great intro for the rest to come. I was like so DUH until I finally got it. Another one I liked a lot was Gibbs and the COLB the PAID POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT another DUH on my part.
    I wonder how many pages in “book” you have on this web-site? that would be an interesting calculation.
    I think what your son means with the “NO” is he’s just not ready yet, feeling his way in the new classes and whatever angst kids go through with at that age. Good thing he has a cool mom that doesn’t force issues, some kids aren’t that lucky.
    Maybe all your commentators could suggest their own personal favorites too.

    Michelle: That’s a good idea about asking readers for their fav’s! As for the boy, well, he feels safer when my activism flies under the radar. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Al says:

    Brilliant trilogy, jbjd! And, an epilogue well written akin to icing on the cake. Whatwith only 25 months before the presidential election of 2012, your warnings should be well heeded across our nation. Shame on the “R’s” & “D’s” for their complicity in wronging the American people in 2008. Guess their underhanded tactics will prevail again in 2012 if the American people remain on the fence. We are faced with a tough, yet simple choice here: remain quietly on the fence and take it, or boldly stand up against it. The PATRIOTS of old found the courage to stand up to tyranny, but it remains to be seen what our fellow Americans will do as 2012 looms just ahead. I hope our collective actions draw inspiration from the last sentence in the Star Spangled Banner.

    Have a good week, jbjd. Back next week to lurk and learn.

    Al: Thank you. And you point to a big procedural problem, that is, 2012 is just around the corner. Do the people who come here now understand, how to fix the system by that time to ensure the Presidency is not stolen again? I doubt it, judging by their lack of enthusiasm to attack the wrongs perpetrated against them in 2008. Citizen complaints of election fraud should have been filed in each state with ballot eligibility laws. And demonstrations and sit-ins should have occurred in those states in which the AG refused to pursue these complaints.

    Well, at least I will make sure if Obama is the D nominee that the citizens in states with such laws are poised to submit ballot challenges at the point of the primaries. In this way, even if the S’soS fail to address these challenges, having exhausted administrative remedies citizens may take advantage of existing laws to file these challenges in court. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. kj says:

    jbjd
    Thought you might find this interesting. I haven’t confirmed it. Comment on Apuzzo’s blog:

    (Comments removed by jbjd.)

    kj: I had to delete most of this comment because I have no evidence of the claims you make. However, I want to emphasize that, notwithstanding several recent posts on other blogs to the contrary, I have seen no evidence that would suggest the HDP refused to sign Obama’s 2008 Certification of Nomination. (Yes; I am aware of the ‘evidence’ upon which other blog owners arrived at their conclusions. But they are omitting material information from their analyses which would tend to discredit their findings. I will explain all in an article I intend to post shortly.) ADMINISTRATOR

  9. [...] (Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP,THROUGH and THROUGH, (3 of 3), and EPILOGUE.) [...]

  10. [...] A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH: EPILOGUE « jbjd says: September 15, 2010 at 03:17 [...]

  11. azgo says:

    jbjd,
    And to those who wish to become an educated electorate,

    In the past couple of months, I have been reading all that I can about the delegate selection process when time permits. I just finished reading the Supreme Court opinion in DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF U.S. v. WISCONSIN, 450 U.S. 107 (1981).

    This case is jam packed full of information regarding state elections, the delegate selection process etc. This particular case comes down to national Party Rules v. state Election Laws.

    Wisconsin has an ‘open primary’ for national political party presidential candidates.

    Wisconsin, at one time, had state delegate ‘vote binding’ laws in their statutes which read;

    “[Footnote 6] The Convention delegates are bound for a limited period by the outcome of the Presidential preference vote in their respective districts or by the outcome of the total Presidential vote in the State at large. Wis. Stat. 8.12 (3) (b) (1977).

    Each delegate must pledge to support the candidate to whom the delegate is bound and to vote for that candidate on the first ballot and on any additional ballot, unless the candidate dies or releases the delegate or until the candidate fails to receive at least one-third of the votes authorized to be cast. Thereafter the delegate’s vote at the Convention is based on personal preference. 8.12 (3) (c) 5.”

    The opinion came down to this;

    “The State has a substantial interest in the manner in which its elections are conducted, and the National Party has a substantial interest in the manner in which the delegates to its National Convention are selected. But these interests are not incompatible, and to the limited extent they clash in this case, both interests can be preserved. The National Party rules do not forbid Wisconsin to conduct an open primary. But if Wisconsin does open its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the National Party Convention vote there in accordance with the primary results, if to do so would violate Party rules. Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared that the National Party cannot disqualify delegates who are bound to vote in accordance with the results of the Wisconsin open primary, its judgment is reversed.”

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=450&invol=107#ff1

    Geeez!, that 1981 closing opinion remark sounds like a hint to the voters of Wisconsin to give a little cheese and a smile to their state representatives and ask them to adopt a ‘closed primary’ election so that their vote would count!

    So Wisconsin, rather than going to the ‘closed primary’ system replaced their ‘vote binding’ laws with this annotation;

    “8.12 – ANNOT.
    The national democratic party has a protected right of political association and may not be compelled to seat delegates chosen in an open primary in violation of the party’s rules. Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981).”

    http://law.justia.com/wisconsin/codes/2010/8/8.12.html

    So much for representing the will of the people in an ‘open primary’ since the state party delegates (‘D’, ‘R’ and other) to the national party convention are NOT bound to support the candidate in which the people may have voted for.

    Please read the dissenting opinion as well for more good information. I never knew their was so much involved in the selection and election of a nominee for President.

    Open primary = Unbound delegate vote.
    Unbound delegate vote = Does my vote count?

    azgo: See, this is the problem with trying to redress the wrongs perpetrated in the 2008 election cycle, or with trying to prevent such wrongs from repetition. You are not from WI; so, where are the citizens of WI in these matters? For that matter, where are the citizens of CA, or any of the other 12 vote binding states? ADMINISTRATOR

  12. [...] A COUP, THROUGH and THROUGH (1 of 3) (Note to Readers:  The “COUP” Series is now complete.  See, A COUP,THROUGH and THROUGH (2 of 3), (3 of 3), and EPILOGUE.) [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers

%d bloggers like this: